Practices that stem authoritarianism

The association between right-wing authoritarianism and humility

Rationale

As some research indicates, right-wing authoritarianism, or the tendency of some people to believe that humans should yield to authorities and comply with traditions, may limit intellectual humility. To measure right-wing authoritarianism, researchers often administer the scale that Altemeyer (1981) constructed and validated. The scale comprises 30 items and three sub-scales (for shorter variants, see Bizumic & Duckitt, 2018; Rattazzi et al., 2007):

authoritarian submission, or the degree to which individuals submit to leaders and authorities, typified by items like “Government, judges, and the police should never be allowed to censor books” (reverse scored),
conventionalism, or the degree to which individuals believe that people should follow the established traditions of society, such as “Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as anybody else” (reverse scored),
authoritarian aggression, or the degree to which individuals endorse aggression towards people who disobey leaders and deviate from conventions, such as “Life imprisonment is justified for certain crimes”.

Arguably, right-wing authoritarianism may diminish intellectual humility. One argument emanates from the purported origins of right-wing authoritarianism. As Gary Kreindler (2005) proposed in a paper he published in Personality and Social Psychology Review, individuals will sometimes observe someone within their community or demographic who violates social norms. For example, a member of a religious community may question the bible or scriptures. After people observe these acts, they are not as certain as to which behaviours or attitudes will be rejected or punished. Some individuals perceive this uncertainty as especially aversive. Therefore, to override this uncertainty, these individuals attempt to fulfill the social norms of their community more vehemently and reject anyone who violates these norms, manifesting as right-wing authoritarianism. Accordingly

people who exhibit right-wing authoritarianism like to assume their moral beliefs—that is, their beliefs about which acts are suitable—are correct rather than fallible,
hence, if people demonstrate right-wing authoritarianism, they do not like to acknowledge their beliefs may be flawed, hindering intellectual humility.

Other reasons could also explain why right-wing authoritarianism may diminish intellectual humility. To illustrate, as a meta-analysis revealed (Van Hiel et al., 2010), right-wing authoritarianism is inversely associated with measures of intelligence, reasoning, or cognitive ability (e.g., Hodson & Busseri, 2012). Presumably, if individuals are intelligent, they can reconcile contradictory arguments—such as the notion the bible is sacred but can also be contested. Consequently, they can embrace deviations from social norms. In contrast, if individuals are not intelligent, they cannot reconcile contradictory arguments as readily. Therefore, they reject deviations from social norms, manifesting as right-wing authoritarianism. Accordingly,

people who exhibit right-wing authoritarianism may not be as able to reconcile contradictory arguments,
therefore, they cannot as readily integrate their opinions with other diverse perspectives,
hence, they are not as inclined to consider and to respect diverse perspectives, limiting intellectual humility,
indeed, in contrast to people who exhibit right-wing authoritarianism, people who report intellectual humility tend to demonstrate either high levels of intelligence or high levels of cognitive flexibility (Zmigrod et al., 2019).

Evidence

Consistent with these premises, Krumrei-Mancuso (2018), in a longitudinal study, did indeed show that right-wing authoritarianism diminishes intellectual humility. In this study, users of Amazon Mechanical Turk completed a survey on two separate occasions, separated by three years. The survey comprised a range of scales including

the Comprehensive Intellectual Humility Scale—an instrument that measures four distinct facets of intellectual humility: the capacity to separate feedback on beliefs from personal attacks, a willingness to revise beliefs, respect for diverse perspectives, and limited overconfidence in beliefs,
the measure of right-wing authoritarianism that Altemeyer (1981) validated,
various instruments that measure religious and spiritual beliefs.

As the analyses revealed, right-wing authoritarianism was inversely associated with intellectual humility when these characteristics were measured at the same time (r = −0.28, p < .001). Right-wing authoritarianism was inversely associated with intellectual humility three years later, even after controlling age, gender, and a measure of social desirability bias.

Initiatives that may diminish right-wing authoritarianism

Accordingly, initiatives or practices that diminish right-wing authoritarianism may foster intellectual humility. To design these initiatives or practices, researchers need to clarify the origins or sources of right-wing authoritarianism. To illustrate, as Duckitt et al. (2002) and Duckitt (2005) proposed, right-wing authoritarianism often stems from the belief the world is dangerous or threatening. Changes that foster a sense of security in the public may, therefore, curb right-wing authoritarianism and promote intellectual humility.

Need for closure

Similarly, right-wing authoritarianism could also be ascribed to a need for closure (Van Hiel et al., 2004)—an aversion to uncertainty and ambiguity as well as a preference towards definitive answers to questions (e.g., Kruglanski & Webster, 1996). People who experience a need for closure tend to reach conclusions or judgments prematurely, called seizing, and then fail to modify these conclusions or judgments in response to additional information, called freezing (Kruglanski & Webster, 1996). Specifically, as Webster and Kruglanski (1994) revealed, individuals who experience a need for closure demonstrate five distinct, but overlapping, tendencies:

first, these individuals exhibit discomfort with ambiguity and feel uneasy when uncertain about some event or issue: an emotion that dissipates once they receive clarity,
second, to cultivate this clarity, these individuals demonstrate a preference for predictability and prefer settings in which they can anticipate the events that are likely to unfold,
third, because of this preference, these individuals report a preference for order and seek environments that are organised and ordered, governed by consistent rules, policies, and practices
fourth, because of their aversion to ambiguity, they reach decisions rapidly, without deliberation or delay, referred to as decisiveness
finally, to fulfill this goal, they seldom consider other sources of information, such as the advice of experts, before they reach these decisions, designated as close-mindedness.

As a range of studies have shown (e.g., Neuberg et al., 1997; Stalder, 2009), need for closure entails two distinct dimensions. The first dimension, need for structure, comprises three facets: discomfort with ambiguity, preference for order, and preference for predictability. Need for structure mainly relates to freezing or the disinclination of some people to update beliefs and judgments. When this conceptualisation is applied, close mindedness tends to be excluded. The second dimension relates to only one of the facets that underpins need for closure: decisiveness. Decisiveness mainly relates to seizing or the inclination of some people to reach conclusions and judgments prematurely.

As Van Hiel et al. (2004) revealed, the first dimension, need for structure, is positively associated with right-wing authoritarianism. In contrast, the second dimension, decisiveness, is not significantly associated with right-wing authoritarianism. Presumably, if individuals prefer clarity and gravitate to familiar and predictable settings, they are more inclined to disapprove anyone who challenges authority or tradition, manifesting as right-wing authoritarianism.

Therefore, initiatives that diminish a need for closure—and especially a need for structure—should curb right-wing authoritarianism and perhaps foster intellectual humility. Consistent with this premise, need for closure, epitomised by items like “I dislike questions that could be answered in many different ways”, is inversely associated with intellectual humility, epitomised by items like “I accept that my beliefs and attitudes may be wrong” (Leary et al., 2017). Here are some illustrations of initiatives that may diminish this need for closure:

After people read a series of fictional short stories, rather than nonfictional essays, their need for closure tends to subside, especially if they tend to read widely (Djikic et al., 2013). Arguably, while people read fiction, they contemplate a variety of events, but without the urgency to reach decisions, inhibiting neural circuits that underpin a need for closure.
When people feel rushed, they tend to exhibit all the hallmarks of a need for closure—such as reach judgments that are consistent with stereotypes (Kruglanski & Freund, 1983; see also De Grada et al., 1999); interventions that diminish time pressure could thus curb right-wing authoritarianism.

Similarly, after individuals undergo treatment of emotional disorders, their intolerance for uncertainty—a feature that characterises need for closure—tends to diminish. In a study that Boswell et al. (2013) published in the Journal of Clinical Psychology, almost 40 patients completed a treatment protocol, called the Unified Protocol for Transdiagnostic Treatment of Emotional Disorders (Barlow et al., 2004; Barlow et al., 2017; Ellard et al., 2010). This treatment includes exercises that enable individuals to

understand the sources and benefits of emotions, such as anxiety,
observe these emotions mindfully, without judgment,
identify and modify thoughts or beliefs that might elicit unpleasant emotions,
appreciate the problems that can unfold if individuals attempt to shun unpleasant emotions, called avoidance
expose themselves to circumstances that might evoke these unpleasant emotions, primarily to prevent avoidance.

Participants who completed between 8 and 18 sessions of this therapy reported a decrease in their intolerance for uncertainty. And this decrease tended to diminish symptoms of anxiety or depression.

Personality

The personality traits of individuals also shape right-wing authoritarianism. To illustrate, in one relevant study, conducted by Perry and Sibley (2012), 190 undergraduate students completed a survey twice, nine months apart. The survey included

measures that gauge right-wing authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1998) and social-dominance orientation (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999)—or the degree to which individuals perceive society as hierarchical and assume that some communities or demographics are inherently superior,
the IPIP (Goldberg, 1999) to measure the five main personality traits, including items that assess openness to experience, such as “Am not interested in abstract ideas” (reverse scored), and agreeableness, such as “Sympathize with others”.

As hypothesised, participants who reported an openness to experience at one time were not as likely to demonstrate right-wing authoritarianism at a later date. In contrast, participants who reported agreeableness at one time were not as likely to demonstrate a social-dominance orientation at a later date. Presumably, if people do not report an openness to experience they may feel unpleasant emotions in response to unfamiliar settings or circumstances. They will thus tend to prefer leaders that maintain traditions, consistent with right-wing authoritarianism.

Initiatives that foster an openness to experience may thus curb right-wing authoritarianism and promote intellectual humility. For example,

as van Tilburg et al. (2015) revealed, after individuals are invited to reminisce about events that elicit feelings of nostalgia, their openness to experience increases,
as Jackson et al. (2012) showed, after older individuals complete a training program, lasting a few hours every week over 16 weeks, designed to improve their reasoning skills, their openness to experience also increases.

During this training program, individuals received a series of words, letters, or numbers, attempted to identify the pattern, and received feedback and advice on how to uncover these patterns. In addition, these individuals answered questions that typify everyday life, such as how to interpret a bus schedule. The questions became increasingly challenging over time.

Anomie—or the perceived disintegration of society

Many individuals experience a state called anomie—in which they feel the institutions and norms of society are disintegrating, often because of inadequate regulation. To illustrate, in 1956, Leo Srole constructed and published a scale, comprising five items, that measures this state of anomie. Thee five items include

there is little use writing to public officials because often they are not really interested in the problems of the average person,
in spite of what some people say, the lot of the average person is getting worse, not better,
it is hardly fair to bring children into the world with the way things look for the future,
these days, a person does not really know whom he or she can count on,
nowadays a person has to live pretty much for today and let tomorrow take care of itself.

As many studies reveal, this sense of anomie is positively associated with right-wing authoritarianism (e.g., Alietti & Padovan, 2013; Blank, 2003). To verify that anomie promotes right-wing authoritarianism rather than vice versa—and to explain this association—Neerdaels et al. (2026) conducted a set of studies that included three experiments. In the first study, over 1500 German participants answered a set of questions that include

the measure of anomie that Srole (1956) had constructed,
two questions that gauge right-wing authoritarianism, derived from Hübner et al., 1997 and Adorno et al., 2019), such as “We should be grateful for our leaders who can tell us exactly what we should do and when”,
two questions that assess limited political control, such as “People like me don’t have any say about what the government does”, and
two questions that measure political uncertainty, such as “I think most of the people are better informed about politics and government than I am”.

As a path analysis revealed, anomie was positively associated with right-wing authoritarianism. Limited political control and political uncertainty mediated this relationship. Specifically, as the path-analyses revealed (Neerdaels et al., 2026),

when people experience anomie—or feel that institutions are disintegrating—they do not feel they can influence political decisions, diminishing political control,
when this political control subsides, individuals withdraw from political discourse, because they regard politics as meaningless and arbitrary, and this withdrawal manifests as political uncertainty,
because of this political uncertainty, individuals seek and relinquish their control to authoritarian leaders—leaders who are dominant and who can shape society and override this uncertainty.

To validate the direction of causality, Neerdaels et al. (2026) conducted a sequence of three experiments, manipulating anomie, political control, and political uncertainty respectively. For example, in one study, 543 American participants read one of two vignettes, both of which depicted American society in ten years:

One of the vignettes, constructed to prime a sense of anomie, implied that society was, in the future, disintegrating. People were not as likely to follow moral standards, and politicians were perceived as illegitimate.
Another vignette, constructed to inhibit a sense of anomie, implied that society was, in the future, more cohesive and cooperative. Politicians were deemed as legitimate and effective. People agreed on what behaviours were right and wrong.

After reading the vignettes, participants completed some measures including

a scale that Kofta et al. (2020) validated to measure political control, comprising items like “People like me have no control over government actions”—a measure that predicts antisemitism,
a set of questions that assess support for strong or authoritarian leaders (Sprong et al., 2019), such as “America needs a strong leader who is willing to challenge democratic values and practices”.

As hypothesised, after participants read a vignette that epitomises anomie, they were more likely to experience a decline in political control and more inclined to support authoritarian leaders. As the next study showed, an experimental manipulation that diminished political control fostered political uncertainty. Finally, an experimental manipulation that induced political uncertainty promoted right-wing authoritarianism (for a summary, see this post).

Threats to the safety of society

Right-wing authoritarian might also emanate from the belief that not only is society deteriorating but that society is also unsafe. For example, Mirisola et al. (2014) verified this possibility after analysing longitudinal data about 1169 Italian participants, collected by the North-Western Observatory, a research institute at the University of Torino, over three times. Specifically,

in January 2003 and January 2005, participants answered a set of questions that assess right-wing authoritarianism in Italian (Giampaglia & Roccato, 2002),
midway during this period, in September 2004, to asses the degree to which they feel the safety of their society is threatened, participants indicated, on a four-point scale, whether they regard that criminality in Italy as very dangerous (Dallago & Roccato, 2010).

As the findings revealed, when individuals perceived the crime in their society as very dangerous, levels of right-wing authoritarian escalated over time (Mirisola et al., 2014). This increase in right-wing authoritarianism was especially pronounced in participants who reported limited levels of this authoritarianism during the first wave.

A subsequent experimental study explored why this belief that society is unsafe promotes right-wing authoritarianism (Mirisola et al., 2014). Specifically, in this study, 131 University students, enrolled at the University of Torino, participated in a simulation in which they needed to decide which of four candidates they would select as Prime Minister of Italy. In one condition, a candidate depicted Italy as a very dangerous place, replete with burglaries and assaults. In another condition, the same candidate depicted Italy as one of the most secure nations in the world. Before and after this simulation, participants completed

a similar measure of right-wing authoritarianism as in the previous study,
a scale that assesses the degree to which individuals feel a sense of control over their life (Kay et al., 2008), epitomised by items like “The things that occur in my life are mostly a matter of chance” [reverse-scored]

As hypothesised, after participants had been exposed to the information about the dangers inherent in Italy, the level of right-wing authoritarian they reported increase. A diminished sense of control over their life mediated this association between awareness of societal danger and right-wing authoritarian. As these findings reveal

when individuals perceive their society as dangerous, they feel they could be subjected to risks they cannot prevent,
so, they do not feel a sense of control over their lives—a feeling that is unpleasant,
to override this unpleasant feeling, these individuals may relinquish their control to a powerful force, such as the government, manifesting as right-wing authoritarian; they feel the government may restore this sense of control.

Overall, this explanation is consistent with the notion of compensatory control (Kay et al., 2008; Laurin et al., 2008). That is, according to this notion, individuals experience a profound need to feel like they can control their lives. Without this sense of control, people feel vulnerable to unforeseen hazards and also do not feel their actions or pursuits will be useful. If their sense of control diminishes for some reason, they attempt to depend on other forces that may be able to regulate the world better, such as a powerful government or a divine entity.

Left-wing authoritarianism and intellectual humility

This inverse association between right-wing authoritarianism and intellectual humility does not imply that conservative individuals may be more conceited than liberal individuals. In principles, left-wing authoritarianism may also be inversely associated with intellectual humility, although this relationship has not been studied empirically.

In a book entitled “The Authoritarian Spectre“, Altmeyer (1996) developed a measure of left-wing authoritarianism—that is, a left-wing variant of right-wing authoritarianism. Left-wing authoritarianism comprises the same three clusters of items as right wing authoritarianism but refers to institutions that want to overthrow the existing powers. Specifically

the first set of items, called left-wing authoritarianism submission, relates to the inclination of individuals to submit to authorities who want to overthrow the establishment
the second set of items, called left-wing authoritarianism aggression, refers to the tendency of individuals to espouse aggression and violence towards the establishment, and
the third set of items, called left-wing conventionalism, refers to the inclination of individuals to comply with the norms and standards of authorities who want to overthrow the establishment.

In a journal called Political Psychology, Van Hiel et al. (2006) developed a variant of this measure, comprising eight items, that excludes left-wing conventionalism. They argued that conventionalism refers to adherence towards established traditions, contradicting the left-wing orientation. According to Van Hiel et al., left-wing conventionalism could be interpreted as individuals who follow left-wing authorities; but this interpretation begins to merge with left-wing authoritarianism submission and thus seems redundant.

Four of the items in this revamped scale relate to left-wing authoritarianism submission: A typical item is “A revolutionary movement is justified in demanding obedience and conformity to its members” (Van Hiel et al., 2006). The other four items represent left-wing authoritarianism aggression. A sample item is “It would be wrong to solve our problems by acts of violence against the conservative establishment” (reverse scored).

This scale was then administered to a sample of voters as well as to another sample of political activists, including affiliates of a Stalinist party, a neo-Marxist communist party, an anarchy party, and right-wing extremist movements. The psychometric properties differed between the voters and the political activists.

In the activist sample, however, a different pattern emerged. Left-wing authoritarianism was inversely related to right-wing authoritarianism. These individuals, presumably, had committed to a specific course of action to forge this sense of clarity (Van Hiel et al., 2006). Furthermore, as evidence of validity, left-wing authoritarianism was significantly elevated in the left-wing activits; these findings confirm that left-wing authoritarianism is a viable concept.

In the ordinary voters, left-wing authoritarianism was positively related to ring-wing authoritarianism as well as cultural conservativism—a measure that represents the extent to which individuals report contempt towards abortion, euthanasia, and premarital sex, for example. Left-wing authoritarianism, however, was negatively related to economic conservativism, representing respect towards trade unions, economic equality, and government intervention (Van Hiel et al. 2006). These findings are compatible with the proposition that more polar attitudes, regardless of whether they support or disavow economic equality, are motivated by similar inclinations. For example, both left-wing and right-wing authoritarianism might represent an attempt to forge a sense of clarity in a threatening world. Accordingly, like right-wing authoritarianism, left-wing authoritarianism may also be inversely associated with intellectual humility.